Post by Radrook Admin on Sept 11, 2019 21:18:08 GMT -5
A Consequential Perspective of Truthfulness
Well, from a classical, consequentialist, perspective, the obligation to be truthful depends on what the results of revealing a truth might be. Also to consider is whether the one asking deserves to be told the truth. That in return depends on the person's motive for asking or demanding to be told the truth. In short, determining whether or not it is OK to reveal the truth depends on the consequences and is completely opposed to the deontological and mindless adherence to unbendable rules.
For example, lawyers and priests, as well as psychiatrists and psychologists, are sworn to confidentiality. But how how far that promise goes depends on the nature of what these professionals are asked to keep a secret. For example, suppose some patient or client confesses to a priest that he plans to slaughter people by setting an explosive. Or suppose a psychologist is told that the patient will murder his wife as soon as he gets home? Or suppose that a person reveals that he or she is habitually involved in child abuse? Is the professional still morally bound to his promise of confidentiality? Someone deontologically following inflexible rules might say he is, while those who make moral decisions based on consequences will let those consequences guide their decision.
Another hypothetical is the physical effect of revealing truth can have on a person. Will it provoke a heart attack or nervous breakdown. What benefit is there in revealing it when it will almost certainly send the person to the grave? so once more the virtue of a behavior must be determined by its consequences. If the consequences are detrimental, then revealing a truth becomes sinful or wrong.
This isn't to say that consequential reasoning is always right. Consider how it can go horribly wrong if one isn't careful:
Consequentialism
is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by what its consequences are. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would help save a person’s life, consequentialism says it’s the right thing to do.
Two examples of consequentialism are utilitarianism and hedonism. Utilitarianism judges consequences by a “greatest good for the greatest number” standard. Hedonism, on the other hand, says something is “good” if the consequence produces pleasure or avoids pain.
Consequentialism is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even impossible, to know what the result of an action will be ahead of time. Indeed, no one can know the future with certainty. Also, in certain situations, consequentialism can lead to decisions that are objectionable, even though the consequences are arguably good.
For example, let’s suppose economists could prove that the world economy would be stronger, and that most people would be happier, healthier, and wealthier, if we just enslaved 2% of the population. Although the majority of people would benefit from this idea, most would never agree to it. However, when judging the idea solely on its results, as classic consequentialism does, then “the end justifies the means.”
ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism
is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by what its consequences are. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would help save a person’s life, consequentialism says it’s the right thing to do.
Two examples of consequentialism are utilitarianism and hedonism. Utilitarianism judges consequences by a “greatest good for the greatest number” standard. Hedonism, on the other hand, says something is “good” if the consequence produces pleasure or avoids pain.
Consequentialism is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even impossible, to know what the result of an action will be ahead of time. Indeed, no one can know the future with certainty. Also, in certain situations, consequentialism can lead to decisions that are objectionable, even though the consequences are arguably good.
For example, let’s suppose economists could prove that the world economy would be stronger, and that most people would be happier, healthier, and wealthier, if we just enslaved 2% of the population. Although the majority of people would benefit from this idea, most would never agree to it. However, when judging the idea solely on its results, as classic consequentialism does, then “the end justifies the means.”
ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/consequentialism
